Skip to content


Lal Mohan Mandal and anr. Vs. Kali Kishore Bhuymali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.965a
AppellantLal Mohan Mandal and anr.
RespondentKali Kishore Bhuymali
Cases ReferredBubu Ratnessari Pershad Narayan Sing v. The Empress
Excerpt:
hurt - rioting--no charge of hurt--common object not stated to cause hurt--bail, order for--issue of order to be immediate--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 147 and 323. - .....served 7 days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the district magistrate for 8 days. but beyond this, we understand that the learned counsel who obtained the rule took the trouble to telegraph to the district magistrate's office, informing him of the result of the application; and it has been laid down by this court in more than one case, of which we need only cite that of bubu ratnessari pershad narayan sing v. the empress 2 c.w.n. 498 that when a rule is issued by the high court and proceedings stayed, and, therefore, a fortiori, when there is an order for bail, the magistrates on receiving reliable information thereof should stay their hands then and there.4. another matter in connection with this case is the delay which took place in the office of.....
Judgment:

1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the convictions of, and sentences passed upon, the petitioners, under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that there was no charge against them under that section and that the common object charged for the riot did not specify the intention to cause hurt.

2. It is admitted that the conviction cannot stand on the ground set out in the rule but we are asked to order a re-trial. No doubt, it would have been our duty to order a re-trial had it not been for the fact that the petitioners have undergone the sentence of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment which was passed against them in modification by the lower Appellate Court.

3. It appears, however, that at the time we issued the order for bail, on the 5th September 1910, the petitioners had only actually served 7 days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the District Magistrate for 8 days. But beyond this, we understand that the learned Counsel who obtained the rule took the trouble to telegraph to the District Magistrate's Office, informing him of the result of the application; and it has been laid down by this Court in more than one case, of which we need only cite that of Bubu Ratnessari Pershad Narayan Sing v. The Empress 2 C.W.N. 498 that when a rule is issued by the High Court and proceedings stayed, and, therefore, a fortiori, when there is an order for bail, the Magistrates on receiving reliable information thereof should stay their hands then and there.

4. Another matter in connection with this case is the delay which took place in the office of this Court. We had reason to complain of a similar delay during the course of the present week; and we must lay down most stringently that all bail orders be issued on the very day on which they are pronounced by the Judges sitting on the Bench, irrespective of the written order on the record.

5. The rule is made absolute and the convictions and sentences are set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //